IDB

I can't stop thinking about Phil using that picture as his profile photo on his actual Facebook. (I've known about it before, but got thinking about it again)
Is it because he knows that fans are bound to find it, so he doesn't want to use one they wouldn't have seen elsewhere anyway?
Or is it because he loves that photo of the two of them.

I suppose it's a bit of both, but it's still extremely cute.

obligatory "why is this trash at the top of the page"

hello9217 wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:21 am I used to follow Zoe and Alfie back in 2014, yes I know , but I remember they asked people to stop coming up to them in restaurants while their eating. Dan and Phil are some of the only youtubers that never really mention things that bother them. Like they may hint at or touch on the subject briefly but never really devote a tweet or a portion of a liveshow to discussing things. After festive ditl, or maybe it was the London one, so many people found out where they lived but I don't think they ever tweeted something like 'stop coming by our apartment.'
Bit off topic but they also don't do this with youtube related things either. I see so many youtubers complain if one of their videos gets demonetized or if it doesn't show up in someones subscription box but deppy just never say anything.

This Compared to other YouTubers, deppy don't tell us anything. When it comes to fans approaching them in restaurants, we don't know the extent to which it does/doesn't bother them, and until we do know, fans who spot them in public will continue acting on their own moral codes alone.

I've watched an interview with Jared and Jensen from Supernatural, who said they don't mind fans coming up to them as long as they do so respectfully (i.e. don't scream in their faces). Emma Watson won't take pictures with fans but is willing to have a conversation with them. Everyone has different boundaries. If I didn't know deppy better, I'd be inclined to say that their lack of comment on these situations means they don't mind fans doing it. But I do know them better, and I know that they just don't always comment on things, period.

If it does bother them, it's a pretty easy fix. It doesn't have to turn into a big deal. They could discuss it in a ls while reassuring people that they aren't angry about it, or Phil could make a post in that disgustingly friendly tone he uses to tell people off And then, knowing the self-policing tendencies of the phandom, most people would listen. (Or risk being attacked...)

But it makes me wonder why they've just stopped addressing so many things? Things that probably bother them?

tacitus wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:19 pm

hello9217 wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:21 am I used to follow Zoe and Alfie back in 2014, yes I know , but I remember they asked people to stop coming up to them in restaurants while their eating. Dan and Phil are some of the only youtubers that never really mention things that bother them. Like they may hint at or touch on the subject briefly but never really devote a tweet or a portion of a liveshow to discussing things. After festive ditl, or maybe it was the London one, so many people found out where they lived but I don't think they ever tweeted something like 'stop coming by our apartment.'
Bit off topic but they also don't do this with youtube related things either. I see so many youtubers complain if one of their videos gets demonetized or if it doesn't show up in someones subscription box but deppy just never say anything.

This Compared to other YouTubers, deppy don't tell us anything. When it comes to fans approaching them in restaurants, we don't know the extent to which it does/doesn't bother them, and until we do know, fans who spot them in public will continue acting on their own moral codes alone.

I've watched an interview with Jared and Jensen from Supernatural, who said they don't mind fans coming up to them as long as they do so respectfully (i.e. don't scream in their faces). Emma Watson won't take pictures with fans but is willing to have a conversation with them. Everyone has different boundaries. If I didn't know deppy better, I'd be inclined to say that their lack of comment on these situations means they don't mind fans doing it. But I do know them better, and I know that they just don't always comment on things, period.

If it does bother them, it's a pretty easy fix. It doesn't have to turn into a big deal. They could discuss it in a ls while reassuring people that they aren't angry about it, or Phil could make a post in that disgustingly friendly tone he uses to tell people off And then, knowing the self-policing tendencies of the phandom, most people would listen. (Or risk being attacked...)

But it makes me wonder why they've just stopped addressing so many things? Things that probably bother them?

Yes because all Alfie and Zoe had to do right was say publicly how much they didn't like fans stalking their house and it stopped completely. Easy fix right?

I don't actually follow them but I read an article when they moved last year that said their new address had been leaked online by "fans" within 24 hours and then the article went on to list all the security they have at their new pad and it sounded like they'd moved to a fortress with security levels that rival Buckingham palace.

I'm going to take a wild guess that speaking out on the issue of fans approaching and stalking them didn't work for them and I don't think it would for Deppy either. Which is why I think they don't bother speaking out about it, they know they'd be wasting their breath and the only thing that would change is they'd get abuse from trolls for being "ungrateful" to their fans. Why rock the boat when there is nothing to be gained?

I do think you are probably right that "most" fans would listen however the issue is most fans already know not to approach them in a restaurant or go to their house without them having to specifically say it. It's not those fans who are the big problem.

The Facebook remembering-birthdays thing is adorable especially with that photo. It seems to have a cupcake frame filter on top too? Now we’re into February I find my heart melting every time I walk past my bedroom door where I’ve got the calendar pinned up. Dan and the poms are cute as heck, I still can’t believe Lola the teddy-bear Pom is real, but Phil’s cheesy grin gets me every time even before I remember the similar one of my dad.

I remember Phil’s Tumblr message about not meeting people at the BBC any more and he said it was cos it had suddenly got to over 100 people that week. There may have been more to it, of course, but it’s a pretty late night for them to stay meeting that many every time.

pearshaped34 wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:19 pm Yes because all Alfie and Zoe had to do right was say publicly how much they didn't like fans stalking their house and it stopped completely. Easy fix right?

I do think you are probably right that "most" fans would listen however the issue is most fans already know not to approach them in a restaurant or go to their house without them having to specifically say it. It's not those fans who are the big problem.

But that's just it. You shouldn't equate the two People who go to their house are creepy stalkers, whereas most of the people who approach them in restaurants are just regular fans. People who go to their house will not listen to reason, whereas people who approach them are genuine fans and are generally extremely respectful. This comes back to the subjective boundaries/morals thing I was trying to talk about - you might not think it's okay to approach them in restaurants (I don't either), but some people do. And I believe that because those people are all fans like you and I, if deppy ask them not to do it, they will stop.

although maybe that's just bc i'm really optimistic lol

They actually have in the past been very clear on some things they wanted to stop - and it didn't make a bit of difference. I assume that's why they've gone the alternate route of just not calling attention to things. Because let's be real, if Dan and Phil said "Stop coming to our house." then all that would do for a lot of people that didn't previously know is tell them that the address is out there and if they look very hard (or sometimes, not hard at all) they too can find it.

A few embedded examples under the cut of them (... Phil) communicating things.

pearshaped34 wrote:I'm going to take a wild guess that speaking out on the issue of fans approaching and stalking them didn't work for them and I don't think it would for Deppy either. Which is why I think they don't bother speaking out about it, they know they'd be wasting their breath and the only thing that would change is they'd get abuse from trolls for being "ungrateful" to their fans. Why rock the boat when there is nothing to be gained?

This. Everytime they complained about something in the past, loads of "fans" have just ranted about how ungrateful they were for asking for a minimum of privacy and respect. It's not just trolls either. Loads of fans just can't seem to understand that being a celebrity doesn't equal having to be available to entertain your fans at all times and not deserving privacy.

I guess it's hard not going up to them when you're a fan and you know it's a one in a lifetime chance to talk to them and I won't bash that girl for approaching them but their fans need to learn to leave them their private moments. A private birthday dinner with friends or seeing Hamilton with Phil's parents... those moments are private and no one should be selfish enough to disrupt them for a picture and a cool story to tell on social media. For me that's even different from talking to them outside the BBC or at airports (although I also disapprove of that) because they're clearly there to enjoy something with friends or family and, I don't know, it only takes a little bit of common sense to figure out that they probably don't want to meet fans and be remined someone might always be watching them or taking sneak pics right then.

tacitus wrote:People who go to their house are creepy stalkers, whereas most of the people who approach them in restaurants are just regular fans. People who go to their house will not listen to reason, whereas people who approach them are genuine fans and are generally extremely respectful.

Eh, I don't know. I don't think it's very respectful to disrupt someone's private dinner with friends. This isn't about going up to them in the street or something, I don't think there's anything wrong with that actually in most cases. But walking up to their table while they're having dinner with friends isn't the same as that. And I think a respectful fan would actually realise that it's not a good idea to talk to them in such a setting.

(Wow, what a lovely, positive post to come out of stress induced lurking with. I've been reading here almost every day though and y'all wrote some lovely posts these past few weeks!)

tacitus wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:04 pm

pearshaped34 wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:19 pm Yes because all Alfie and Zoe had to do right was say publicly how much they didn't like fans stalking their house and it stopped completely. Easy fix right?

I do think you are probably right that "most" fans would listen however the issue is most fans already know not to approach them in a restaurant or go to their house without them having to specifically say it. It's not those fans who are the big problem.

But that's just it. You shouldn't equate the two People who go to their house are creepy stalkers, whereas most of the people who approach them in restaurants are just regular fans. People who go to their house will not listen to reason, whereas people who approach them are genuine fans and are generally extremely respectful. This comes back to the subjective boundaries/morals thing I was trying to talk about - you might not think it's okay to approach them in restaurants (I don't either), but some people do. And I believe that because those people are all fans like you and I, if deppy ask them not to do it, they will stop.

although maybe that's just bc i'm really optimistic lol

I'm admittedly pessimistic but I don't believe (even a little bit) that all they have to do to make people stop is say stop so guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

I will point out though even if Deppy spoke out about it only really the dedicated fans would hear and remember their wishes. More casual fans and the weirdos who'll approach anyone famous would continue to go off their own moral code.
And there really are people who will take pictures with anyone vaguely famous. I once went to a pub outing for an old friends birthday and there was a well known football manager in the pub who people kept approaching and two of the girls I was with (not friends of mine) went and got a picture with him after someone else in the party explained to them who he was. (While I sat like this )

alittledizzy wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:11 pm They actually have in the past been very clear on some things they wanted to stop - and it didn't make a bit of difference. I assume that's why they've gone the alternate route of just not calling attention to things. Because let's be real, if Dan and Phil said "Stop coming to our house." then all that would do for a lot of people that didn't previously know is tell them that the address is out there and if they look very hard (or sometimes, not hard at all) they too can find it.

A few embedded examples under the cut of them (... Phil) communicating things.

The BBC one people mentioned already:

And various others:

Yeah, this really shows there's no easy fix to fans being creepy.
It's unfortunate that people are doing this kind of thing, you'd hope that they'd get a little private time to be with their friends, even in a public space.

I've been pretty bored the last days so I spent a lot of my time exploring tumblr and reading random phan comments.

I don't remember where I saw it, but someone was talking about how odd it would be if D&P were touring the world but paying rent for 5 months. Combined with the assumption that the current flat is not a forever home and that it might be a temporary place (renting furnished is generally not a long-term thing, is it?), how likely is it that they are moving at the moment? We know that they are busy with the tour prep, so it would be much easier for them to also be busy with something else. Also, since they moved in April last year, it could be that they have a 1 year lease on that place?

Especially if they do have 2 flats, it would make hiding the move a lot easier. Something something gaming streams, can someone with more talent for conspiracy theories tie together the loose ends?

I like the theory, LtrllySusan, but I think it's unlikely they'd move right before going on tour for half a year. I don't really see why they would rent a place like that for one year just to move again either, especially with the tour coming up that they must've known about already back then. Maybe I'm missing something but does it make sense to move again so soon when you're about to tour the world for half a year and won't be home in your new place much? Unless of course they bought a flat or house this time but the timing still seems off. Makes me wonder why they didn't buy a flat or house right away when they moved out of their old place. (I mean, it's always possible that things didn't work out the way they wanted and they had to move into their current place as a last minute solution, so maybe you're right! I do like the theory!)

Also I'm not sure if paying rent for five months to keep the place while on tour is that big of a deal for deppy? I obviously don't know how much rent is for them but they probably can afford to keep the place while they're on tour. They did it last time too, didn't they?

Only thought I have on possibly moving is they’d pay a lot less in storing their stuff for a few months especially if a lot of furniture came with the duplex. It sounded like Dan’s bed didn’t and that plus things like his piano are huge, but maybe.

flarequake wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:20 pm Only thought I have on possibly moving is they’d pay a lot less in storing their stuff for a few months especially if a lot of furniture came with the duplex. It sounded like Dan’s bed didn’t and that plus things like his piano are huge, but maybe.

They do have that whole rarely-seen slounge full of the furniture from their last place. I wonder if they'll ditch that when they move again and go with all new stuff? Unless they continue to want to use familiar decor for a filming room.

flarequake wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:20 pm Only thought I have on possibly moving is they’d pay a lot less in storing their stuff for a few months especially if a lot of furniture came with the duplex. It sounded like Dan’s bed didn’t and that plus things like his piano are huge, but maybe.

Definitely! At a conservative estimate, if they live somewhere relatively central, they’re likely to be paying £4000-£5000+ per month rent? That’s if it’s one large duplex 3 bed flat with a crazy ass floorpan - it would be more for 2 flats, if you subscribe to the 2 flat theory. £25k+ is a lot to pay for a flat that’s going to sit empty for 5 months (although they are millionaires, so....)

Not the most outstanding tweet, but at least it's early. This gives me hope for a gaming video later.

LtrllySusan wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:09 am I've been pretty bored the last days so I spent a lot of my time exploring tumblr and reading random phan comments.

I don't remember where I saw it, but someone was talking about how odd it would be if D&P were touring the world but paying rent for 5 months. Combined with the assumption that the current flat is not a forever home and that it might be a temporary place (renting furnished is generally not a long-term thing, is it?), how likely is it that they are moving at the moment? We know that they are busy with the tour prep, so it would be much easier for them to also be busy with something else. Also, since they moved in April last year, it could be that they have a 1 year lease on that place?

Especially if they do have 2 flats, it would make hiding the move a lot easier. Something something gaming streams, can someone with more talent for conspiracy theories tie together the loose ends?

someone else may have said the same thing, but i definitely made a post to this effect right after tour was announced*! i stand by my thinking, especially now we know that a loud oh the furniture in the living flat is rented with the apartment itself. i don't think they're moving now, but i think in april they'll either move their stuff into a house/flat they've bought, or they'll put things in storage. sure, storing an apartment full of stuff for 5 months would be expensive, but not as expensive as renting 2 flats they aren't even using. plus if they're getting rid of most of their old furniture, that's less storage space - or maybe they'll keep the work flat and just cram everything in.

* at the time, we didn't know what 'that week in march' was, and one of the major theories was that they were buying a house and something fell through - i thought it might have been structural and they'd get it fixed while they were away on tour. obv now we know that's not true, but that was the origin of my moving theory

I shudder to think of all that money being spent on renting 2 flats in central London for 5 months when they're not going to be there, it just seems to be so extravagant, especially for Phil. Perhaps they will drop the duplex (which must be the more expensive of the two, being higher spec/bigger/furnished) and just keep the filming flat. A dream scenario would be for them to purchase their forever home, move in early April and then get any renovations done while they're away touring so it's perfect when they return in September!

New sims video later, that's my prediction

DatCog wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:00 pmA dream scenario would be for them to purchase their forever home, move in early April and then get any renovations done while they're away touring so it's perfect when they return in September!

I don't actually think that's unrealistic. In fact, I kind of think it's more realistic than paying rent on two flats for five months when they won't be there? Or maybe that's my low-income-person-bias talking, lmao. I do accept that what is logic to me may not be logic to them.

DatCog wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:00 pm Perhaps they will drop the duplex (which must be the more expensive of the two, being higher spec/bigger/furnished) and just keep the filming flat.

I think the filming flat is their storage. The reflection of the slounge made it look like it was full of stuff, maybe they didn't even unpack all of their old things.( The clutter could be the reason why they filmed truth bombs with their friends in their living apartment instead of the slounge.)
I had this thought before, but I can see them keep shooting their videos in their filming flat even after they moved in a forever home, to protect their privacy.

alittledizzy wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:23 pm

DatCog wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:00 pmA dream scenario would be for them to purchase their forever home, move in early April and then get any renovations done while they're away touring so it's perfect when they return in September!

I don't actually think that's unrealistic. In fact, I kind of think it's more realistic than paying rent on two flats for five months when they won't be there? Or maybe that's my low-income-person-bias talking, lmao. I do accept that what is logic to me may not be logic to them.

Thank you, glad I'm not the only one thinking along these lines and would definitely be what I would do in their position! I just can't for the life of me imagine Capita£ester in particular throwing away tens of thousands of his hard-earned pounds on renting two empty properties.

On the flip side, maybe they deliberately scheduled the tour to be a relentless 5 months away from home so that they could justify ditching the flat(s) and save the rent...only time will tell!

@malday That thought has crossed my mind too: one day we'll just stop seeing the duplex and all their videos will be done in the filming flat. I'll be sad if we never see the forever home but I wouldn't blame them for wanting to keep it private.

malday wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:42 pm I had this thought before, but I can see them keep shooting their videos in their filming flat even after they moved in a forever home, to protect their privacy.

The only way I can see this working is if they axe the liveshows all together. After all, they are the only regular content rn that we are getting from the 'real' flat. If they set up the slounge a bit nicer, they can use that for collabs.

In the scenario where they keep using the filming flat, do you think they'd admit to having filming sets, or would we just eventually get suspicious because we hadn't seen the grey couch room in a while?

Ok, I need to ask a question. How many of you guys think Dan and Phil are being completely inactive on twitter? I’m not talking live shows because that’s a different story, mostly twitter. Because I’ve seen people complain that they aren’t as active as they were. And I just wanted to say that I don’t buy that? Phil tweets almost every single day. If he misses one day it’s far and few between from what I can see. And dan? Dan’s once gone 10 days without replying to fans on twitter. I can’t remember if that was 2016 or 2017 though but still. So I don’t get the whole “they’re inactive on twitter”.
And also do you guys think they simply don’t care about their audience anymore (regarding dropping weekly live shows)? Or do you think it’s just the matter of they’d like to do weekly but having to sort out tour stuff isn’t going in their favor? Personally I call the reasoning for no more weekly live shows because of tour a bit odd because they did live shows all thoughout 2015/2016 when planning all that shit.But also at the same time, I get it. There’s no time.
But I’ll say this, they’re becoming more like most larger youtubers in the sense of tweeting. If they tweet every few days, then maybe they’ll reply maybe they won’t. Twitter isn’t their main platform they’re known for to begin with. And also same with live shows, not all larger youtubers do them weekly for whatever reasons. Maybe it’s because I follow larger youtubers and all but like this doesn’t seem like anything out of the ordinary to me?

confusedpanda wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:19 pm Ok, I need to ask a question. How many of you guys think Dan and Phil are being completely inactive on twitter? I’m not talking live shows because that’s a different story, mostly twitter. Because I’ve seen people complain that they aren’t as active as they were. And I just wanted to say that I don’t buy that? Phil tweets almost every single day. If he misses one day it’s far and few between from what I can see. And dan? Dan’s once gone 10 days without replying to fans on twitter. I can’t remember if that was 2016 or 2017 though but still. So I don’t get the whole “they’re inactive on twitter”.
And also do you guys think they simply don’t care about their audience anymore (regarding dropping weekly live shows)? Or do you think it’s just the matter of they’d like to do weekly but having to sort out tour stuff isn’t going in their favor? Personally I call the reasoning for no more weekly live shows because of tour a bit bull shit because they did live shows all thoughout 2015/2016 when planning all that shit. So I don’t get that logic.
But I’ll say this, they’re becoming more like most larger youtubers in the sense of tweeting. If they tweet every few days, then maybe they’ll reply maybe they won’t. Twitter isn’t their main platform they’re known for to begin with. And also same with live shows, not all larger youtubers do them weekly for whatever reasons. Maybe it’s because I follow larger youtubers and all but like this doesn’t seem like anything out of the ordinary to me?

I haven't noticed any major changes to their Twitter activity. Phil is still very active and Dan might be a little less active but I believe him when he says he prefers instagram because I feel the same way. Sometimes Twitter can be overwhelming.

Live shows - They are busy for the tour and it is different this time because of the large amount of time they are going to be away. Add in the different countries - they have to get paperwork, vaccinations, they are still arranging TBC dates, etc. and it is probably taking up a good chunk of their time.

I also think they have decided on boundaries - they still tweet us things every once in a while - we get Phil's birthday tweets but no mention of Christmas/NYE activities. We get a selfie every few months but less cute domestic pictures.

confusedpanda wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:19 pm Ok, I need to ask a question. How many of you guys think Dan and Phil are being completely inactive on twitter? I’m not talking live shows because that’s a different story, mostly twitter. Because I’ve seen people complain that they aren’t as active as they were. And I just wanted to say that I don’t buy that? Phil tweets almost every single day. If he misses one day it’s far and few between from what I can see. And dan? Dan’s once gone 10 days without replying to fans on twitter. I can’t remember if that was 2016 or 2017 though but still. So I don’t get the whole “they’re inactive on twitter”.
And also do you guys think they simply don’t care about their audience anymore (regarding dropping weekly live shows)? Or do you think it’s just the matter of they’d like to do weekly but having to sort out tour stuff isn’t going in their favor? Personally I call the reasoning for no more weekly live shows because of tour a bit odd because they did live shows all thoughout 2015/2016 when planning all that shit.But also at the same time, I get it. There’s no time.
But I’ll say this, they’re becoming more like most larger youtubers in the sense of tweeting. If they tweet every few days, then maybe they’ll reply maybe they won’t. Twitter isn’t their main platform they’re known for to begin with. And also same with live shows, not all larger youtubers do them weekly for whatever reasons. Maybe it’s because I follow larger youtubers and all but like this doesn’t seem like anything out of the ordinary to me?

I just made a post on tumblr about this... I still haven't seen the original twitter thing that sparked this, I probably should have read it before responding but it's a very Monday morning for me and I need more coffee before I plunge into something that will probably frustrate me.

But to answer you: They're definitely not inactive, imo. I think people using that phrase are trying to voice that the ways Dan and Phil are active right now don't interest them, and they're reacting to a general fear of change with the liveshows being less frequent. But the only thing I see is Dan and Phil doing exactly what they did before the last tour, except communicating more. (They're still not the best. But way better than previous tour.)

While I agree with others that Deppy paying the amount of rent they (probably) do now when they are not even using the apartment(s?) seems like an incredible waste of money I also think it's an incredible waste of money to do so now when they can afford to buy and they still do it.

I will say this though I don't think them keeping it on would be particularly unusual for someone in their shoes. I'd bet there are a lot of actors and musicians who are renting in expensive areas like London who pay rent on apartments they don't use for months at a time. If you're not ready to buy for whatever reason then giving up your apartment and moving everything to storage and having to find a new place you like as much to rent for when you return is probably a ridiculous amount of hassle to save on a few months rent, particularly if you can easily afford that rent.